The lib media as well as some conservative pundits are blathering on about the death of the Republican Party. If they haven't declared it dead, then they're dwelling on its state of disarray.
Why is it that the Republicans are considered to be in such a sorry, fractured state but the Democrats are alive and kicking? I don't hear many charges of the Democrats being divided, or dead.
It's ridiculous for the Dems to be given a pass on their lack of consensus.
Hillary Clinton and her henchmen are on the attack. Obama and his army, including John Kerry, are fighting with gusto.
Everything is not hunky dory in Democratland, far from it.
In Colbert I. King's op-ed for the Washington Post, for instance, he slams Hillary and Bill Clinton while singing the praises of Barack Obama. No Dem unity there.
"Be what you would seem to be -- or, if you'd like it put more simply -- Never imagine yourself not to be otherwise than what it might appear to others that what you were or might have been was not otherwise than what you had been would have appeared to them to be otherwise."
-- The Duchess in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"
Which gets me to that superficially charming, self-absorbed couple Billary, ever so possessed with an outsize sense of entitlement. What else to call Bill and Hillary Clinton as they partner in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination, tag-teaming Barack Obama with alternating blows both above and below the belt? It's an act the twosome plans to take all the way to the White House.
If they make it there -- a big if -- the only unanswered question is where Bill will choose to hang his hat. Will it be in her old space in the East Wing, or will he set up shop in the West Wing?
Smart money is on Billary settling in the Oval Office with "his" and "hers" desks.
Who would have thought, eight years ago, that the country might get back Billary, two people reeking of self-pity and spoiling for fights with anyone who has the temerity to stand in their way?
As with the Queen in "Alice," it's all about them. Witness their attempts to devalue Obama.
But don't point that out to the Clintons. They are always right and see no reason to apologize or take back anything they have said or done. And, as we have seen, Billary will say and do anything to come out ahead.
After slamming "Billary" in general terms, King then provides five "items" exposing that the Clintons will say anything in order to secure a victory over saint and savior Obama.
King echoes the remarks made by Michelle Obama earlier this week:
"The one thing that is clear is that when power is confronted with real change, they will say anything," she said.
Clearly, there's a lot of animosity there. It's become very personal and very ugly.
What does all the fighting mean?
Does it mean that it's time to declare lib media outlets the big losers in the race because the various factions haven't convinced the Dem voters to agree on a nominee?
Have lib columnists declared that the Party is over because of the divisiveness?
I don't think so.
The Clinton camp and the Obama forces are waging war. So what?
That's politics, especially Clintonian politics. Some libs are backing Hillary, others Obama.
That's to be expected.
So why are Michael Medved and those of his ilk on a crusade against conservative talk radio hosts and columnists expressing dissatisfaction with John McCain and Mike Huckabee?
Medved says:
The big loser in South Carolina was, in fact, talk radio: a medium that has unmistakably collapsed in terms of impact, influence and credibility because of its hysterical and one-dimensional involvement in the GOP nomination fight.
For more than a month, the leading conservative talkers in the country have broadcast identical messages in an effort to demonize Mike Huckabee and John McCain. If you’ve tuned in at all to Rush, Sean, Savage, Glenn Beck, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Hugh Hewitt, Dennis Prager, and two dozen others you’ve heard a consistent drum beat of hostility toward Mac and Huck. As always, led by Rush Limbaugh (who because of talent and seniority continues to dominate the medium) the talk radio herd has ridden in precisely the same direction, insisting that McCain and Huckabee deserve no support because they’re not “real conservatives.” A month ago, the angry right launched the slogan that Mike Huckabee is a “pro-life liberal.” More recently, after McCain’s energizing victory in New Hampshire, they trotted out the mantra that the Arizona Senator (with a life-time rating for his Congressional voting record of 83% from the American Conservative Union) is a “pro-war liberal.”
...South Carolina demonstrates the utter ineffectiveness of concerted efforts by the conservative media elite to derail the campaigns of two popular candidates. Continued efforts in that direction will prove no more effective, and will hurt both our industry and the Republican Party.
In other words, the talk radio jihad against Mac and Huck hasn’t destroyed or even visibly damaged those candidates. But it has damaged, and may help destroy, talk radio.
What a crock!
Not surprisingly, the targets of Medved's criticism lashed out at him, and rightly so.
Medved reveals his own stupidity by suggesting that talk radio hypnotizes listeners and controls their minds and behavior. That's so lame. He may be trying to insult Limbaugh and the others, but he's really insulting the American people.
Has anyone come out and said that Oprah should be considered ineffective, damaged, and destroyed because she didn't deliver New Hampshire to Obama? Not to my knowledge.
So why trumpet the supposed demise of talk radio?
Perhaps Medved was desperate for attention. If so, his scheme worked.
Bottom line:
At this point, neither party has decided on a nominee.
Candidates' supporters and critics continue to make their cases.
King despises Billary and wants others to understand why. It's as simple as that.
No comments:
Post a Comment